A sex robot is a replacement for prostitutes and porn, not relationships. Only with strong AI and artificial wombs can they replace relationships.

No, that is a standard feature of humanity. You included.

Though that guy is an idiot, and his thinking is anti-free market (which you don't seem to understand).

You underestimate people and likely AIs. A properly programmed strong AI will seek to maximize the fulfillment of human values, including resurrecting loved ones, or just as many people as possible (satisfies people like me), and will likely just want to satisfy the values of those who preserved themselves--ie they clearly valued life.

All you have to do is survive until it happens.

The solution is to be alive and awake as each neuron is destroyed and replaced by emulated neurons. This way, no copy can be made, and your experience is continuous.

Most systems aren't self referencing. Economies are. The Agricultural and Industrial revolutions are good examples of economic hockey sticks. A new method made EVERYTHING better, almost all at once. A thinking computer will do much the same, but to an even greater degree. Imagine trillions of people just sitting around thinking about ways to solve various problems all day, with no need for sleep, and only needing a little electricity to eat. Then turn some of that thinking power toward improving their own efficacy and efficiency.

NAD riboside. Look into it. There are other wonders coming up the pipe behind it as well.

I am not GP.

Jordan thinks incrementally, Kurzweil thinks in terms of hockey sticks. Both are valid, but the latter is more forward thinking when it comes to self-referencing systems.

Seems to me that ANY kind of general intelligence is really, really hard, and that cracking any of them means a new era for mankind is coming, and fast. Taking our time is a good thing. It will allow us to minimize the existential threats naturally associated with general intelligences.

How much does a car cost? How would you like your electricity bill to go up to the same level?

Wind turbines are a LOT bigger than a car. You are comparing mountains to molehills here.

You are judging someone's intelligence based on their political preference. I think that says everything anyone needs to know about you, friend.

With billions, I could fund a lot of research for the good of mankind (and thus myself). Cure diseases, end aging, reduce risk from existential threats, etc.

How much do they cost there? Probably enough to need investors.

I don't know one way or the other, but this guy sure has been around a long time. If he was a scammer, one would think he would have run off with someone's money by now.

"When the same argument can be used to equally explain all potential outcomes, you have zero knowledge."

Which experiment? You mean the single one done and repeated a few times in the 1800's that don't really apply to Earth's atmosphere?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas on Mars, or compared to a vacuum, or an atmosphere full of monoatomic and diatomic gasses, but it retains LESS heat than the average molecule of gas in Earth's atmosphere. You can see this for yourself if you bothered to look them up, as I did a few years ago.

Water vapor is short lived, but we have shifted the equilibria. Ignoring that and focusing on the CO2 red herring will both lose you the support of industry and anyone who actually bothers to re-examine the core axiom of AGW, which is, in fact, blatantly, and I think purposefully wrong.

Saying that water vapor isn't a problem because of its short lifespan is like saying MRSA infections are no big deal because the bacteria just die in a few hours anyways.